What is Digg?249 Comments
- sandrino, on 12/11/2007, -3/+295What gives ISPs the right to modify pages that don't belong to them? If this isn't against the law, it should be. This is precisely why we must have net neutrality.
- snerge, on 12/11/2007, -4/+128encrypt everything
- crapmatic, on 12/11/2007, -2/+108The consumer agreed to take the ISP across the river. The ISP crawled onto the consumer's back, his sharp claws prickling into the consumer's soft hide, and the consumer slid into the river. The muddy water swirled around them, but the consumer stayed near the surface so the ISP would not drown.
Halfway across the river, the consumer suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the ISP inserting content into his Internet traffic. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.
"You fool!" croaked the consumer, "Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?"
The ISP shrugged. "I could not help myself. It is my nature." - yetAnotherCroc, on 12/11/2007, -0/+101Since the ISP would be distributing a modified version of the page, wouldn't they violate copyrights laws? Unless of course the page is GPL'ed, in which case they would have to also provide source for any and all modifications and let others in turn modify and distribute whatever they have added.
- notque, on 12/11/2007, -4/+83And then you add their servers to your host file. I block all advertisements through a host file. Google "Mike's ad host".
It's your computer. You can block these ***** if you want. I do.
No ***** corporations ruining our internet. We paid for it through taxes. It's ours. ***** off. - slamtv7, on 12/11/2007, -1/+58***** Rogers! I hate you so much! Your service absolutely sucks and now this... just great. Ugh. It sucks, because in Canada you don't have a wide range of providers to choose from really and Rogers is the only cable provider.. in Ontario I believe for Internet. Well let me tell you, this is frustrating.
- inactive, on 12/11/2007, -1/+47Next: Watermark adverts on my porn.
- Nantel, on 12/11/2007, -1/+39Because simply sending us an e-mail, warning us that we are approaching our bandwidth limit, is sooooo complicated.
- doitintheroad, on 12/11/2007, -0/+37For Americans not familiar with Canadian ISPs, they are the devil. On average, Canadian ISPs are more expensive and more restrictive than any American providers. Rogers in particular owns dozens of television stations, is one of Canada's major landline and cell phone providers, on top of being one of Canada's largest internet providers. That said, they don't miss a chance to screw us and form new questionable habits regarding privacy and etc. at any turn.
- chongli, on 12/11/2007, -0/+31Bad idea. Rogers throttles all encrypted traffic. Enjoy your 2kb/sec "broadband" connection.
- solidblu, on 12/11/2007, -3/+34http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier
I can't wait first time i get scammed, bad eBay item, identity stolen, cursed at online, or my life threatened online I am suing my ISP and you should too - Xyleene, on 12/11/2007, -1/+28If you're in a major city in Canada there is no reason to use on of the major ISPs. There are so many independent internet providers that you really have no one to blame but yourself. Vote with your dollars. Switch to an independent.
- bcarl314, on 12/11/2007, -1/+27This is an easy, slam dunk violation of copyright law. Finally, computer geeks can us DMCA against some bastard industry! (or at least we can if US companies do this).
- snerge, on 12/11/2007, -0/+25switch ISP ... no problem with ssh/https with sympatico. I tunnel most of my stuff trough ssh without bandwidth restrictions
- TeacherOfHeroes, on 12/11/2007, -0/+23This is about the most blatant violation of a common carrier's obligation that I can think of; Rogers has a history of doing this, they're basically Canada's Comcast.
If we need any laws, then we need laws reaffirming the obligations of common-carriers and the rights of consumers. We shouldn't have to come up with a technological work-around. The Internet is like the Mail, Rogers has no more legal right to peek inside your packets than the post office has to peek inside your mail. - superfusion, on 12/11/2007, -1/+22Rogers has an interesting history. For example, in the 1990s, their cable TV division infamously brought in "negative-option" billing ... ie. customers gradually got access to new channels, and were billed for them, unless they actively opted to not receive the new charge.
There was uproar and their name has been a bit tainted since. Then they bough the SkyDome and named it after themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_option_billi ...
Oh Ted ... http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/10/87FR.html - BoneheadFarker, on 12/11/2007, -1/+20No, it's just *****.
- djbon2112, on 12/11/2007, -0/+17Dump Rogers?
- bodger, on 12/11/2007, -0/+15He was referring to stopping Rogers from injecting their own HTML into the page, not trying to fool them into thinking you are using less bandwidth.
- TeacherOfHeroes, on 12/11/2007, -0/+14So get your Internet from somewhere else out of protest. Rogers has done enough already to deserve losing customers. But where to go isn't immediately obvious.
Even in areas that have a duopoly like Rogers v. Bell, there are often smaller providers, that operate more locally, that you have to look for. Bell in under an obligation to wholesale dsl access to 3rd party retailers to encourage competition (see gov'ts are good for something). Often these companies also provide better service and better prices (because they have to).
I currently get my Internet from TekSavvy [ http://www.teksavvy.com/ ] - they're very helpful; there's no bandwidth cap, and as far as I can tell, no content blocking/filtering.
Support a local, non-evil company today by switching ISPs. - ToastPop, on 04/17/2009, -1/+15So poetic, so moving.
- Erowid, on 12/11/2007, -0/+13Better yet, leave Rogers... I left them like 3 months ago over torrent traffic shaping bs and I couldn't be happier.
- demodawid, on 12/11/2007, -2/+14Watermark adverts? on MY porn?
- Philluminati, on 12/11/2007, -0/+10Yeah right. Or why not make your site's javascript read it's own page after delivery and either delete the added elements, or just plain steal the users information. Then we'll see if there is a privacy issue.
- JedicodeWarrior, on 12/11/2007, -3/+13It's not so much the advertising content that bugs me, but the potential ability to inject links to spyware or other payloads that can comprise your system during the pages onload event.
SSL for everyone ... like Snerge said, encrypt *everything*. - xirtap, on 12/11/2007, -0/+9Then suddenly one day, they'll inject their own ads.
- TeacherOfHeroes, on 12/11/2007, -0/+9This wouldn't be the first case of a page's owner getting upset that their page wasn't being viewed the way they intended. Usually we think they're crackers (think about the wackos with the bad reaction to AdBlock)
This is a bit different, though. Its not the user choosing to view the page differently, it is the ISP refusing to show their subscribers the page as you intended. They're not removing ads, they're inserting content.
What if they insert annoying flashing ads? Your internet reputation would be sullied and any products you were selling (if you're a store) might not be purchased - could you sue for damages?
Next up - paying the ISP to not have ads inserted into your webpages. You can get the standard package (reduced ads), or Delux (none at all) - ElbertF, on 12/11/2007, -2/+11Wow caps.. You must be super serial.
- jasepower, on 12/11/2007, -1/+10Show crappy Rogers how you feel about this by dumping them. I did and couldn't be happier. If you're in Ontario, you can try TekSavvy. http://www.teksavvy.com
- TPHigginbotham, on 12/11/2007, -0/+8How is this any different than your telephone service's operator interrupting a personal call, and, in the voice of the person you are talking to, proceed to explain that your telephone bill is due? It's amazing how little people understand about the Internet.
- Stemnin, on 12/11/2007, -0/+8we don't get many choices here, rogers and bell .. (un)lucky us.. atleast our third choice isn't comcast..
- ashchristopher, on 12/11/2007, -0/+8If you are in Ontario, you may want to check out TekSavvy. True UNLIMITED package, and no throttling. Also, significantly cheaper than other ISP's,
- spiralspirit, on 12/11/2007, -0/+8It's more likely than you think.
- Player0ne, on 12/11/2007, -1/+9http://www.canadianisp.com/ go there find one its a great site.
- PopcornDave, on 12/11/2007, -0/+8Either that or a Firefox extension to provide some kind of MD5 for web page decoding. Not decryption per se but something to verify that the page hasn't been modified.
- TheIguana, on 12/11/2007, -2/+9As long as Rogers lobbyists hold a back row seats to parliamentarians ears, I doubt we will see any change in policy. But as the recent Canadian DMCA events showed us, descending an angry crowd with the media on Jim Prentice's (Industry Minister) Christmas party tends to get a change in policy going, quickly.
- serkia, on 12/11/2007, -0/+7its good to be proactive, but WHY NOT JUST SEND AN EMAIL instead of having the possibility of bad press unless they were testing the public's reaction....I LOVE DIGG
- fantyx, on 12/11/2007, -0/+7This doesn't surprise me. Rogers has a very restrictive policy on what a user is "allowed" to do online. Among other things.
No torrents, (any encrypted traffic will have your connection throttled to lower then dialup speeds)
No servers of any kind.(stated in EULA) Port 25 is blocked. If you absolutely need it, you can opt to have all your mail traffic forwarded through rogers servers, so they can 'check content'.
The speeds are often terrible to begin with. I had cable, so my "6Mb" connection might let me stream youtube at 2 in the morning.
They don't properly set up virtual networks for cable users. It took me a while to realize that windows share connection attempts hitting my firewall, were coming from down the road. Guy didn't have a router, and was broadcasting all over the neighborhood.
Stated in the EULA, Rogers can change any aspect of your service at any time and is not required to notify you. - Klowner, on 12/11/2007, -0/+7That would only help minimally if they're transparently injecting additional HTML tags into requested pages as it passes through their servers, the content would still appear to come from the original host. It would block the resulting browser request for the additional injected banner or flash advert, but the HTML would still contain additional crap.
- dinostabOMG, on 12/11/2007, -0/+7whoosh
- mattwilson, on 12/11/2007, -1/+8I'm so glad I switched from these ***** 6 months ago.
- EntropyFan, on 12/11/2007, -1/+8And therein is the problem.
It isn't bad. Actually, it is quite helpful, and really a kind of win-win for the ISP and the customers. It is a non-intrusive way of alerting the customer of something important.
But it does put you on one hell of a slope, and the dropoff leads to places we don't want to go. - jbird71, on 12/11/2007, -0/+7The big Canadian ISPs (Rogers and Bell in my area) are all douche bags. They freely admit to "shaping" packets from P2P applications
- Chaoticfist, on 12/11/2007, -0/+7Being screwed by Rogers is as normal as Beer to Canadians.
- dinostabOMG, on 12/11/2007, -0/+6I mean from a legal perspective, what is he hoping to demonstrate? For what would the ISP be accountable?
- Moose_Head, on 12/11/2007, -0/+6I can vouch for this comment personally. One of our data rooms had two lines from Bell terminating in it. One was ADSL (Bell Dedicated IP) and one was DSL (Regular DSL Line). If I called Bell tech support from a number associated with the ADSL line I waited no more then 30 seconds on hold and was connected to a technical genius. If I call regarding the DSL or from a number associated with the DSL I could expect 1 hour on hold and to have a script read to me for the next hour before a trouble ticket was made, if one is at all.
We upgraded the DSL line to ADSL and magically the account was being serviced at the same level as the first. - shadowspawn, on 12/11/2007, -0/+6We do this with transparent proxy servers for some of our clients. using a hosts file is irrelevant, because what we do is take away advertisements and trackers and inject our own thing. You can go to www.example.com/images/whatever.jpg and the server sees the get request, and replaces the jpg with an image of choice. scripts, applets, whatever we wish in order to protect or modify content. you can add the www.example.com or *.example.com to your hosts file, but then you block the site.
transparent proxies/smart routers... and no, there's nothing you can do. there was a big issue about it with the @home network doing this (maybe excite?) and it was deemed illegal somehow.
for all *you* know, the content you are requesting isn't the content you are getting.
to sum up: adblocking software or .hosts files won't do you a darned bit of good. - SpaceRibs, on 12/11/2007, -0/+6see, THAT should be illegal out of all the things discussed here. Punishing people for attempting to have a private internet session is completely against the very base of freedom. It's like buying food with money and the store asking for 10 dollars extra because your personal information isn't collected with the purchase.
- martoq, on 12/11/2007, -0/+6Build a better ad service and we'll build a better ad blocker.
- inactive, on 12/11/2007, -2/+8YES! ABSOLUTELY I WILL REPORT YOU AND BLOCK YOU! THANKS!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 247 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is